[Cite as State v. Coffman, 2022-Ohio-217.]
COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : Case No. 21-COA-015 : ERIC D. COFFMAN : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 21-CRI- 082
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 27, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL MATTHEW J. MALONE ASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR The Law Offices of Matthew J. Malone, LLC 110 Cottage St. 10 East Main Street Ashland, OH 44805 Ashland, OH 44805 Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Eric D. Coffman appeals the July 21, 2021 sentencing
entry of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of
Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On April 12, 2021, the Ashland Police Department filed a complaint against
Defendant-Appellant Eric D. Coffman with the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas,
alleging one count of Domestic Violence, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A) and 2919.25(D)(4). A preliminary hearing was held on April 21, 2021, where
the magistrate determined there was probable cause to bind the case over to the Ashland
County Grand Jury. The Bill of Information was filed on April 30, 2021.
{¶3} Prior to presentment to the grand jury, Coffman entered into a negotiated
plea agreement whereby he entered a guilty plea to the sole count in the Bill of
Information. The State reserved the right to speak at sentencing. The matter came on for
a change of plea hearing on May 25, 2021, where the trial court conducted the plea
colloquy. Coffman was notified that the sanction for third-degree felony ranged from nine
months to a maximum of 36 months, with a fine of up to $10,000. Coffman was on post
release control at the time of the offense. The trial court informed Coffman that he had
781 days remaining of post release control supervision, so it could impose a maximum of
781 days as a prison PRC sanction consecutive to the felony prison sentence. After the
plea colloquy, the trial court found Coffman had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
waived his constitutional rights and Coffman entered a plea of guilty to Count One in the
1 A statement of the underlying facts is not necessary for the disposition of this appeal. Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 3
Bill of Information, the offense of domestic violence. The trial court accepted Coffman’s
guilty plea and entered a finding of guilty.
{¶4} The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and set the matter for a
sentencing hearing on July 19, 2021. After considering the statutory sentencing factors
and the presentence investigation report, the trial court sentenced Coffman to serve 18
months in prison for the offense of domestic violence, with credit for 99 days served on
the new felony offense. The trial court also revoked Coffman’s post release control and
imposed an additional 24-month prison sentence for violation of post release control
supervision, to be served consecutively with the felony prison sentence. The aggregate
prison term was 42 months. Coffman was also ordered to pay court costs. The sentence
was journalized via sentencing entry filed on July 21, 2021.
{¶5} Appellate counsel for Coffman has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388 U.S. 924,
indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous.
{¶6} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious
examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,
then he or she should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.
Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record which
could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a
copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise
any matters the client chooses. Id. Once the defendant's counsel satisfies these
requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine
if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines the appeal Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 4
is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal
without violating constitutional requirements or may proceed to a decision on the merits
if state law so requires. Id.
{¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed October 22, 2021, this Court found Counsel had
filed an Anders brief and had served Coffman with the brief. The judgment entry advised
Coffman he “may file a pro se brief in support of the appeal on or before November 15,
2021.” A copy of the judgment entry was served on Coffman via Certified U.S. Mail at
Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution.
{¶8} Coffman has not filed a pro se brief.
{¶9} We find Coffman’s counsel has adequately followed the procedures
required by Anders.
ANALYSIS
{¶10} Coffman’s counsel has filed a brief identifying three arguably meritorious
issues in the record: (1) whether the trial court complied with Criminal Rule 11 before
accepting Appellant’s guilty plea; (2) whether the sentence imposed on Appellant for the
new felony offense was clearly and convincingly contrary to law; and (3) whether the trial
court erred by revoking Appellant’s post-release control and imposing an additional
consecutive prison term.
I.
{¶11} In his first proposed Assignment of Error, Coffman asks whether the trial
court complied with Crim.R. 11 before accepting his guilty plea.
{¶12} “‘When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 5
enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and
the Ohio Constitution.’” State v. Hurt, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0053, 2020-Ohio-
2754, 2020 WL 2120071, ¶ 17 quoting State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-
5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 7 quoting State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d
450 (1996). “An appellate court determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily conducts a de novo review of the record to ensure that the
trial court complied with the constitutional and procedural safeguards.” State v. Moore,
4th Dist. Adams No. 13CA965, 2014-Ohio-3024, 2014 WL 3359226, ¶ 13.
{¶13} To ensure that pleas conform to these high standards, the trial judge must
engage the defendant in a colloquy before accepting his or her plea. See State v. Ballard,
66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981), paragraph one of the syllabus; Crim.R. 11(C),
(D), and (E). It follows that, in conducting this colloquy, the trial judge must convey
accurate information to the defendant so that the defendant can understand the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Coffman, 2022-Ohio-217.]
COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : Case No. 21-COA-015 : ERIC D. COFFMAN : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 21-CRI- 082
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 27, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL MATTHEW J. MALONE ASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR The Law Offices of Matthew J. Malone, LLC 110 Cottage St. 10 East Main Street Ashland, OH 44805 Ashland, OH 44805 Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Eric D. Coffman appeals the July 21, 2021 sentencing
entry of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of
Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On April 12, 2021, the Ashland Police Department filed a complaint against
Defendant-Appellant Eric D. Coffman with the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas,
alleging one count of Domestic Violence, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A) and 2919.25(D)(4). A preliminary hearing was held on April 21, 2021, where
the magistrate determined there was probable cause to bind the case over to the Ashland
County Grand Jury. The Bill of Information was filed on April 30, 2021.
{¶3} Prior to presentment to the grand jury, Coffman entered into a negotiated
plea agreement whereby he entered a guilty plea to the sole count in the Bill of
Information. The State reserved the right to speak at sentencing. The matter came on for
a change of plea hearing on May 25, 2021, where the trial court conducted the plea
colloquy. Coffman was notified that the sanction for third-degree felony ranged from nine
months to a maximum of 36 months, with a fine of up to $10,000. Coffman was on post
release control at the time of the offense. The trial court informed Coffman that he had
781 days remaining of post release control supervision, so it could impose a maximum of
781 days as a prison PRC sanction consecutive to the felony prison sentence. After the
plea colloquy, the trial court found Coffman had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
waived his constitutional rights and Coffman entered a plea of guilty to Count One in the
1 A statement of the underlying facts is not necessary for the disposition of this appeal. Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 3
Bill of Information, the offense of domestic violence. The trial court accepted Coffman’s
guilty plea and entered a finding of guilty.
{¶4} The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and set the matter for a
sentencing hearing on July 19, 2021. After considering the statutory sentencing factors
and the presentence investigation report, the trial court sentenced Coffman to serve 18
months in prison for the offense of domestic violence, with credit for 99 days served on
the new felony offense. The trial court also revoked Coffman’s post release control and
imposed an additional 24-month prison sentence for violation of post release control
supervision, to be served consecutively with the felony prison sentence. The aggregate
prison term was 42 months. Coffman was also ordered to pay court costs. The sentence
was journalized via sentencing entry filed on July 21, 2021.
{¶5} Appellate counsel for Coffman has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388 U.S. 924,
indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous.
{¶6} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious
examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,
then he or she should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.
Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record which
could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a
copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise
any matters the client chooses. Id. Once the defendant's counsel satisfies these
requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine
if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines the appeal Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 4
is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal
without violating constitutional requirements or may proceed to a decision on the merits
if state law so requires. Id.
{¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed October 22, 2021, this Court found Counsel had
filed an Anders brief and had served Coffman with the brief. The judgment entry advised
Coffman he “may file a pro se brief in support of the appeal on or before November 15,
2021.” A copy of the judgment entry was served on Coffman via Certified U.S. Mail at
Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution.
{¶8} Coffman has not filed a pro se brief.
{¶9} We find Coffman’s counsel has adequately followed the procedures
required by Anders.
ANALYSIS
{¶10} Coffman’s counsel has filed a brief identifying three arguably meritorious
issues in the record: (1) whether the trial court complied with Criminal Rule 11 before
accepting Appellant’s guilty plea; (2) whether the sentence imposed on Appellant for the
new felony offense was clearly and convincingly contrary to law; and (3) whether the trial
court erred by revoking Appellant’s post-release control and imposing an additional
consecutive prison term.
I.
{¶11} In his first proposed Assignment of Error, Coffman asks whether the trial
court complied with Crim.R. 11 before accepting his guilty plea.
{¶12} “‘When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 5
enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and
the Ohio Constitution.’” State v. Hurt, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0053, 2020-Ohio-
2754, 2020 WL 2120071, ¶ 17 quoting State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-
5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 7 quoting State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d
450 (1996). “An appellate court determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily conducts a de novo review of the record to ensure that the
trial court complied with the constitutional and procedural safeguards.” State v. Moore,
4th Dist. Adams No. 13CA965, 2014-Ohio-3024, 2014 WL 3359226, ¶ 13.
{¶13} To ensure that pleas conform to these high standards, the trial judge must
engage the defendant in a colloquy before accepting his or her plea. See State v. Ballard,
66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981), paragraph one of the syllabus; Crim.R. 11(C),
(D), and (E). It follows that, in conducting this colloquy, the trial judge must convey
accurate information to the defendant so that the defendant can understand the
consequences of his or her decision and enter a valid plea. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d
239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 26. If a defendant receives the proper
information, a reviewing court “can ordinarily assume that he understands that
information.” State v. Carter, 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 38, 396 N.E.2d 757 (1979).
{¶14} Before accepting a guilty plea in a felony case, a trial court must address
the defendant personally and determine that “the defendant is making the plea voluntarily,
with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved,
and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of
community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.” Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). The court
must also inform the defendant of both the constitutional and nonconstitutional rights he Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 6
is waiving and determine that he “understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest,
and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and
sentence.” Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). Finally, the court must determine that the defendant
understands that he “is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him
or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant's favor, and
to require the state to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at
which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.” Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(c). Strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) is required because constitutional
rights are involved. “However, failure to [literally comply] will not necessarily invalidate a
plea.
{¶15} “The underlying purpose, from the defendant's perspective, of Crim.R.
11(C) is to convey to the defendant certain information so that he can make a voluntary
and intelligent decision whether to plead guilty.” Veney at ¶ 18 quoting State v. Ballard,
66 Ohio St.2d 473, 479–480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). When a trial court complies with
Crim.R. 11(C)(2) in accepting a plea, there is a presumption that the defendant's plea was
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Montanez, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
108093, 2020-Ohio-1023, 2020 WL 1310343, ¶ 8 citing State v. Alexander, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 103754, 2016-Ohio-5707, ¶ 11; State v. Murray, 12th Dist. Brown No.
CA2015-12-029, 2016-Ohio-4994, ¶ 20.
{¶16} Upon our review of the change of plea hearing and the trial court’s plea
colloquy, we find the trial court strictly complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11. The
record shows Coffman understood and answered the trial court’s questions. As an
example of the trial court’s thoroughness, when it reviewed the negotiated plea Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 7
agreement with Coffman, it discovered an error where the parties referred to optional post
release control, rather than mandatory due to the offense of violence. The trial court
corrected the error on the record and explained to Coffman how the error related to the
required imposition of post release control.
{¶17} The record in this case shows the trial court’s compliance with Crim.R. 11
and supports the trial court’s determination that Coffman’s plea was knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily made.
{¶18} Coffman’s first proposed Assignment of Error is overruled.
II.
{¶19} In his second proposed Assignment of Error, Coffman contends there was
an error in sentencing.
{¶20} R.C. 2953.08 governs appeals based on felony sentencing guidelines.
Subsection (G)(2) sets forth this Court's standard of review as follows:
(2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section
shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or
modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence
that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand
the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's
standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this
division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 8
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under
division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section
2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever,
if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶21} “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is
more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty
as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in
the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be
established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three
of the syllabus.
{¶22} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial
court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed
in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant
within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Morris, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 20-COA-
015, ¶ 90 quoting State v. Dinka, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-03-022 and CA2019-
03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36.
{¶23} Here, Coffman’s sentence is not contrary to law, and we find that his
sentence is within the statutory range for a third-degree felony. This Court is therefore
without authority to disturb Coffman’s sentence absent a finding by clear and convincing
evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11
and 2929.12. Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 9
{¶24} The trial court stated during the sentencing hearing that it considered the
presentence investigation report and the statutory sentencing factors. Coffman had been
previously convicted of domestic violence, assault, and aggravated menacing. He was on
post release control for a conviction of domestic violence when he committed another
offense of domestic violence.
{¶25} Coffman’s second proposed Assignment of Error is overruled.
III.
{¶26} In his third proposed Assignment of Error, Coffman contends the trial court
erred when it revoked Coffman’s post release control and imposing an additional,
{¶27} In State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156, 2018-Ohio-5132, 124 N.E.3d 766,
the Ohio Supreme Court held a trial court must inform a defendant who is on post release
control and is pleading guilty to a new felony offense of the trial court's authority to revoke
the defendant's post release control and impose a prison term consecutively to any term
of imprisonment it imposes for that new felony offense. State v. Krouskoupf, 5th Dist.
Muskingum No. CT2018-0020, 2019-Ohio-806, 2019 WL 1076877, ¶ 9.
{¶28} A majority of the Ohio Supreme Court found,
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) requires a trial court to advise a criminal defendant on
post-release control for a prior felony, during his plea hearing in a new
felony case, of the trial court's authority under R.C. 2929.141 to terminate
the defendant's existing post-release control and to impose a consecutive
prison sentence for the post-release-control violation.
Bishop, 2018-Ohio-5132, ¶ 21. Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 10
{¶29} Upon our review of the change of plea hearing, we find the trial court
informed Coffman there was a potential post release control prison sanction in this case.
The trial court stated during the change of plea hearing that Coffman was subject to a
separate consecutive sentence for his post release control violation:
* * * [T]here is 781 days of PRC Supervision time remaining, * * * I could
impose a prison sentence, a PRC prison sanction up to a maximum of 781
days in the case, do you understand that?
***
Okay. So in worst case scenario, because that PRC Sanction is required by
law to be served consecutive to any prison sanction, do you understand that
the worst case scenario, aggregate prison sentence can be 36 months plus
781 days, so you are looking at at [sic] least five years and some change at
that point between the two aggregated consecutively?
(Change of Plea Hrg., T. 18-19).
{¶30} We find the trial court complied with the requirements of State v. Bishop and
R.C. 2929.141 when it informed Coffman of the time remaining on his post release control
and that the court would be imposing the remaining time as a post release control prison
sanction to be served consecutively to his prison sentence for the new felony offense. Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-015 11
CONCLUSION
{¶31} After independently reviewing the record and considering the issues raised
in the brief filed by Appellate counsel, we agree with Counsel's conclusion that no
arguably meritorious claim exists upon which to base an appeal.
{¶32} Hence, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant
counsel's request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Ashland County Court of
Common Pleas.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, John, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.